Presidential assassination movies are pretty routine in film history. One recent one – In the Line of Fire – is darn good. But assassination flicks about real living Presidents are rare indeed. In fact, I can’t think of a single other one beside the new British docudrama Death of a President to be premiered at the Toronto Festival next month. Peter Dale, the head of More4, which is televising the work, has this to say:
“I’m sure that there will be people who will be upset by it but when you watch it you realise what a sophisticated piece of work it is.”
Oh, really? I guess, to paraphrase Bill Clinton, that depends on what your definition of “sophisticated” is. I haven’t seen the film, of course, but at first glance this seems a kind of upmarket political porn. I would ask Messrs. Dale and Range (the filmmaker) how they would feel about viewing a “sophisticated” docudrama of themselves being assassinated in 2007? Horrifed, perhaps? Maybe scared out of their knickers that someone would be encouraged to follow the film’s example? In the UK, where such things are subject to much more stringent legislation, they might even be advised to sue the filmmakers. Bush has no such luck in this country.
Meanwhile, Dale and Range will go on to get the pats on the back from le tout London, maybe even a rave review in the Guardian (or respectful if the film is aesthetically mediocre). Nice work, fellas. Good career move.
PJM Home
Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:
1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.
2. Stay on topic.
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.
5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.
The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.
These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.
30 Comments
1. Terrye:Disgusting. People like this drove me to vote for Bush. Really.
Aug 31, 2006 - 11:45 am 2. rjschwarz:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contact_(film)
In the movie Contact … “News footage of President Bill Clinton was used and digitally altered to make it appear as if he is speaking about alien contact. The altered footage caused a controversy both from the White House and from news organizations, over the ethics of fictionalizing such footage.”
I’m sure the comparisons will be interesting. After all Contact didn’t kill Clinton, just change his speech so that he was talking about aliens and still it caused contraversy.
Aug 31, 2006 - 12:08 pm 3. Skookumchuk:As the Brits and Europeans in general become ever more craven and dhimmified, and as emigration of their most talented and loss of global influence and prestige boost their jealousy of America to ever greater heights, we can expect much more of this in the coming decades.
Fasten your seat belts. It’s going to be a bumpy century.
Aug 31, 2006 - 12:18 pm 4. jedrury:Yelling fire in a crowded theater results in a tort and a crime; people can get hurt. Publishing “how to be a hitman” results in the lawsuit against the publisher.
Aug 31, 2006 - 12:30 pm 5. mrp:This movie, while deserving of disdain and outrage and denunciation,is farfetched
“protected” political expression. Reasonable people will realize this and vote with their pocketbooks to stay away.
Nice post, Roger. In reply, The Anchoress says it all for me.
Aug 31, 2006 - 12:43 pm 6. Mitch:So when can we expect the Theo van Gogh biopic? {crickets}
Aug 31, 2006 - 1:14 pm 7. Ray Zacek:The Speak-Truth-to-Power social action committee of the Unitarian-Universalist Church of Portland, Oregon, plans to show this movie as part of their Thanksgiving fundraiser for the Peoples Kitchen and Windmill Power Project.
Aug 31, 2006 - 1:28 pm 8. mrp:Ray,
Seriously? A church group would show this film to raise money?
Aug 31, 2006 - 2:57 pm 9. mrp:My first contact with this virulent hatred was while watching the long-cancelled Craig Kilborn show. An amazing thing watching that “comedy” segment, which included a video tape of President Bush during a press conference with the words “Sniper Wanted” flashing on the screen.
As I turned off the set, I imagined the several steps needed to finally air that piece – from a writer’s first thought to the producer’s final approval. And there was probably a network guy involved, too. What were these people thinking as they signed off on that sketch?
As for the “docu-drama” of the post, I’d be really interested in knowing who coughed up the money to finance the project.
Aug 31, 2006 - 3:12 pm 10. AskMom:“Upmarket Political Porn.” Roger, I was a lobbyist for 25 years and I cannot imagine a more accurate way to describe this kind of deviancy. As surely as the internet has sped the creation of sex porn addicts, this movie is going to accelerate the spiral to the bottom for BDS victims.
Yesterday in Seattle a gang of thugs inflicted some of the violence they claim to abhor on a uniformed serviceman. Their actions and this movie are products of the same pandering to the very basest instincts. The only thing left to be determined is the scope and depth of the back-blow.
It doesn’t wash off one ounce of the filth, but it is somewhat consoling to know that this film will cost the Democratic Party. Unless they renounce it strongly, it may cost them heavily. Here’s another opportunity for Howard Dean to start winning back the mainstream, and it’s a safe bet what he’ll do instead is showcase more small-minded liberal idiocy for us.
Aug 31, 2006 - 3:25 pm 11. Lem:Here we are expecting a film depicting the assassination of the leader of the free world.
In contrast, the movie Sum of All Fears (”27,000 Nuclear Weapons. One Is Missing”), based on a Tom Clancy novel of the same name was changed to accommodate Arab sensibilities.
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2332
“The novel had Arab terrorists setting off a nuclear device at football’s Super Bowl but the movie, under pressure from Islamist organizations, features neo-Nazi terrorists instead.”
So apparently what is good for the goose is not good for the gander.
Oh, I forgot – “Bush is the real terrorist”
Aug 31, 2006 - 4:07 pm 12. GaryK:This kind of mentality is not new for leftists. I well remember the day that KAL 007 was shot down by the Russians. We followed world news very carefully as part of our research duties, so when we got wind of this, the TV went on and all of the researchers in my unit who could, looked on as the coverage rolled on. You have to understand that the vast majority of the 60 or so researchers in my unit were very left in orientation and I was not. Nonetheless, when it was announced that the Russians had apparently shot down this plane and killed all the passengers, only one person was dumb enough to speak up to say, “well of course the Russians were justified in shooting down this aircraft, it had violated their airspace, hadn’t it? It was a real clapping at the “Springtime for Hitler” production number moment. But, as I looked around, I wondered how many others really felt this way too but were just too savy to say so out loud.
This leftist mentality has spread like poisonous Kudzu vine and this film is merely one result.
Aug 31, 2006 - 4:43 pm 13. Ray Zacek:The church group comment was a joke, but not a farfetched one. And I agree with GaryK there is a lot of intellectual kudzu out there. The toxins planted in the West during the 20th century are doing their damage.
Aug 31, 2006 - 6:00 pm 14. mrp:The church group comment was a joke, but not a farfetched one.
That’s a relief. But you’re right, it isn’t a farfetched joke. A publishing house owned by the Presbyterian Church US is promoting a book written by 9/11 conspiracy theorists.
Aug 31, 2006 - 6:48 pm 15. Vulgorilla:When my neighbor (a registered independent) heard about this movie, he said “The Democrats can’t be that stupid, can they? Guess I’ll have to vote for whoever the GOP runs in 2008″. Somehow, I suspect that he’s not alone in his thoughts.
Aug 31, 2006 - 7:21 pm 16. Lem:Some pertinent quotes.
“I will close with a story I like a lot. It’s a true story. It happened on June 10, 1990. A British Airways jet bound for Malaga, Spain, took off from Birmingham, England. It was expected to be a routine flight. As the jet climbed through the 23,000-foot level, there was a loud bang; the cockpit windshield directly in front of the captain blew out. The sudden decompression sucked Captain Lancaster out of his seatbelt and into the hole left by the windscreen. A steward who happened to be in the cockpit managed to snag the captain’s feet as he hurtled past. Another steward rushed onto the flight deck, strapped himself into the captain’s chair and, helped by other members of the crew, clung with all his strength to the captain. The slipstream was so fierce, they were unable to drag the pilot back into the plane. His clothing was ripped from his body. With Lancaster plastered against the nose of the jet, the co-pilot donned an oxygen mask and flew the plane to Southampton – approximately 15 minutes away – and landed safely. The captain had a fractured elbow, wrist and thumb; a mild case of frostbite, but was otherwise unharmed.”
“We find ourselves, like the captain, in a situation that is hopeless but not yet desperate. The arcs of history, culture, philosophy, and science all seem to be converging on this temporal instant. Familiar arrangements are coming apart; valuable things are torn from our hands, snatched away by the decompression of our fragile ark of culture. But, it is too soon to despair. The collapse of the old system may be the crucible of a new vision. We must get a grip on what we can and hold on. Hold on with all the energy and imagination and ferocity we possess. Hold on even while we accept the darkness. We know not what miracles may happen; what heroic possibilities exist. We may be only moments away from a new dawn.”
The quotes above are from a speech to The Federalist Society at the University of Chicago Law School on April 20, 2000, (b4 9/11) by the then Associate Justice to the California Supreme Court and now Associate Justice to the court of appeals for the DC Circuit Janice Rogers Brown.
http://www.constitution.org/col/jrb/00420_jrb_fedsoc.htm
Aug 31, 2006 - 8:11 pm 17. Steven Mitchell:I think some of you owe kudzu an apology. It at least prevents erosion. If only leftists were as useful…
Aug 31, 2006 - 8:51 pm 18. TomTom:Thank you, Lem, for that inspiring, moving quotation from Janice Rogers Brown.
Aug 31, 2006 - 10:14 pm 19. HA:But, like Captain Lancaster, it is extraordinarily difficult to be sanguine while awash in bizarre garbage like this “docu-drama” (a Brave New World-class neologism). That this piss-Christ crowd can be fat, honored and happy leaves me utterly stunned.
Sophisticated? I’m expecting the exact opposite. I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that the plot will be rather simplistic. Bush will be assasinated and peace and brotherhood will reign. The world will become like that old Coke ad once the war-mongering fascist is dead.
This movie will be something like the Exorcist, with Bush in the role of the demon Pazuzu. And every left-wing nutjob on the planet will be feverishly fantasizing about being Father Merrin.
Sep 1, 2006 - 3:32 am 20. David Thomson:“As for the “docu-drama” of the post, I’d be really interested in knowing who coughed up the money to finance the project.”
That is indeed a real good question. Could it be George Soros and his shadow party? My guess is that a film like this one cost a minimum of a million dollars to produce.
I am reminded of Oliver Stone’s “Nixon.” Anyone with a lick of common sense knew knew that this three hour film was likely going to lose money. The investors almost certainly were either very stupid or leftist ideologues. Can “Death of a President” even break even?
Sep 1, 2006 - 3:39 am 21. melk:So a culture that is too scared to publish those Mohammed cartoons is now bravely taking on a movie about the killing of Bush? And those courageous Canadians also deserve credit for allowing this movie to be shown in Toronto. You never know what those crazy Republicans might do.
Sep 1, 2006 - 10:10 am 22. MarkD:What’s not to like?
The moonbats get their jollies while they are separated from their money. Sane people are repelled, and more likely to give Bush the benefit of any doubt. Poor taste is not criminal.
Look at the “success” of the preceding attacks on the president. Impeachment cost the Republicans. Soros funded attacks on Bush haven’t hurt him.
If I were a conspiracy theorist, I’d blame Rove. The Dems are killing themselves by making this personal. There is so much to dislike about Bush’s policies – immigration, federal spending, prescription drugs, etc even from a conservative standpoint that the Republicans are vulnerable. Instead, idiots focus on the one area where Bush is right – WOT and attack the man. Oh, and offer no solutions.
No solutions might not be their worst strategy since Rahm Emanuel’s call for a draft is not, in my opinion, a winner. Nor is running from Iraq. What’s the Democrat slogan for 2006 going to be? We’ve got nothing or worse?
Sep 1, 2006 - 10:21 am 23. rjschwarz:“I’m going to go out on a limb and predict that the plot will be rather simplistic. Bush will be assasinated and peace and brotherhood will reign. The world will become like that old Coke ad once the war-mongering fascist is dead.”
At least that would be a nice change from the permenant crypto-theocracy Hollywood thinks will be ushered in after a big emergency (see Escape from LA and V for Vendetta).
More likely we’d see massive doses of Cheney Derangement Syndrom and look back on sedate rhettoric that characterized the Bush 43 era.
Sep 1, 2006 - 10:47 am 24. wyokate:Just when I start to feel criticizing George Bush would be easy, something like this happens keeping me on his side, and I am not sure that is the line these people want me to take. I am a lifelong Democrat who did not vote for him in 2000 and until 9/12 could barely stand to look at him. However, he seems to never, ever be given a fair shake, and is constantly under the worst vitriolic attacks — like this one. Even his “friends” often loudly leave him in the lurch — as if whether he succeeds or not in his policies does not affect them. While I don’t always agree with his tactics, the mission he has undertaken is momentous and necessary, and he neither gives in nor gives up. I am not sure that could be said of any other politician. Maybe he gauges the greatness of his mission by the viciousness of the attacks on it, and on him, and sees in that his courage to keep going. I hope so. I don’t know how else he does it.
Sep 1, 2006 - 1:42 pm 25. Gary Rosen:wyokate,
You echo my own feelings almost precisely. I still don’t consider myself any kind of “right-winger” – I’m middle-of-the-road on economic matters and still very liberal on “lifestyle” issues – and sometimes I feel like a hypocrite for supporting Bush. But between the Democratic party having caved in to its Michael Moore wing, and the MSM devoting itself wholeheartedly to dishonest BDS-driven agenda-mongering, I can’t help but want to stay in his corner.
Sep 1, 2006 - 6:35 pm 26. Luther McLeod:wyokate
Let me second Gary Rosen’s agreement with your post. Our lefty friends call it stupidity and obtuseness, re Bush. I call it vision (with perhaps a less than stellar implementation) and a belief that he is doing the right thing for this country. He is accused of many motivations for his actions. I deem them all false. For I fail to see what advantage or persona of history he might be seeking, given his decisions. And, honestly, I do not think he is concerned with personal adulation.
I admit, my most basic support and admiration of GWB comes from his ‘not so simple act’ of doing SOMETHING. Something, to stop our descent into appeasement and eventual disappearance, as a force for good in this world. One can either believe that or not. I happen too. (to or too, I have no idea)
Sep 1, 2006 - 8:22 pm 27. ElMondo:Sophisticated?
Sorry… I’m still trying to figure out exactly how clichÈ,†strawman arguments, wishful thinking, and cartoonish exaggeration can be considered sophisticated.
Sep 1, 2006 - 9:36 pm 28. David Tomlin:It’s a ‘British docudrama’. Can’t Bush sue in the UK if he wants to?
Sep 2, 2006 - 12:00 am 29. David Tomlin:It doesn’t wash off one ounce of the filth, but it is somewhat consoling to know that this film will cost the Democratic Party.
When my neighbor (a registered independent) heard about this movie, he said “The Democrats can’t be that stupid, can they? Guess I’ll have to vote for whoever the GOP runs in 2008″.
The Dems are killing themselves by making this personal.
The film was made in Britain, but some people can’t wait to vaguely blame it on, or somehow associate it with, ‘the Democrats’.
Will it ‘cost’ the Democrats in the midterm elections, by creating sympathy for Bush? Possibly. But I doubt the effect will be significant if it exists at all.
However, he seems to never, ever be given a fair shake, and is constantly under the worst vitriolic attacks — like this one.
I understand the film depicts an anti-war demonstrator committing a political assassination. That sounds more like an attack on anti-war demonstrators than on Bush.
Sep 2, 2006 - 1:52 am 30. HA:Well, my limb just snapped. Fortunately, there was a much larger and sturdier one directly beneath my previous perch.
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/015171.php
No, peace and harmony didn’t reign after Bush was murdered. Rather, the REAL jack-booted fascists from Cheney on down finally got on with destroying civilization. How sophisticated! Braaa-Vo!!!
What is really going on here is that leftists have to invent imaginary, strawman fascists to demolish in order to overcome the dissonce due to their cowering before the real, turbaned ones.
I wonder if these self-proclaimed “sophisticated” and supposedly “brave” filmakers would dare show the Theo Van Gogh film “Submission” along side their simple-minded drivel.
Sep 2, 2006 - 5:06 am